G Amareswarappa vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/16898/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01031021202602 August 2026Bench: K SREENIVASA REDDY9 pages
For Petitioner: MARELLA RADHAFor Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010310212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 16898 OF 2026 Between: 1. G AMARESWARAPPA, S/o. G.Nagappa, age 48 years Rio. H.No.45/142- 26 G Venkataramana Colony Kurnool Town and District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayath Raj Department A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi.-522238 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Finance Department A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi.-522238 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Agricultural AND Co Operative Department, AP Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi.- 522238 4. The Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing Department, O/O D.No 2-16-83 Skylark towers 11TH line Syamala Nagar At Guntur Guntur District. -522004 5. The Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department O/o Labbipeta Vijayawada NTR District.-520010 2 6. The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department Panchyath Raj Circle O/o Kurnool Kurnool District.-518001 7. The Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj Department PRI Division Adoni Kurnool District.-518301 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the enhanced work amount for work (ii) Repairs to BT Road from Parlapalli to meet Yerrakota Peddamarriveedu Road Yemmiganur (Mandal) executed by the petitioner under Package No. APAM/KRNL/Yemmiganur/07 through the Agreement No.2022-23 dated 14.07.2022 being the amount of Rs.18,28,584/- plus GST of Rs.3,29,145/- totaling Rs.21,57,729/-, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs.21,57,7291- with interest at 18PERCENT per annum to the petitioner forthwith, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs.21,57,729/- (being Rs.18,28,584/- towards the enhanced work cost and Rs.3,29,145/- towards GST at 18%) with interest at 18% per annum in respect of the extra work executed by the petitioner for work (ii) under Package No. APAM/KRNL/Yemmiganur/07 through the Agreement No. 2022- 23 dated 14.07.2022 and to pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

The Court made the following order:

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO.16898 OF 2026 O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

” … to issue to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the enhanced work amount for work (ii) Repairs to BT Road from Parlapalli to meet Yerrakota

Peddamarriveedu Road Yemmiganur (Mandal) executed by the petitioner under Package No. APAM/KRNL/Yemmiganur/07 through the Agreement No.2022-23 dated 14.07.2022 being the amount of Rs.18,28,584/- plus GST

of Rs.3,29,145/- totaling Rs.21,57,729/-, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs.21,57,7291- with interest at 18PERCENT per annum to the petitioner forthwith, and to pass…..”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents.

3.

Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, a Civil Contractor, was entrusted with the aforesaid road works. The petitioner completed all the works in accordance with the prescribed specifications and within the stipulated time. The works were measured by the concerned authorities and the 5

amount of Rs.2,49,24,480/- was recorded in the Measurement Book and subsequently paid to the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.17611 of 2024. 4. The present writ petition relates to the additional work executed in respect of Work (ii), namely, Repairs to BT Road from Parlapalli to Yerrakota Peddamarriveedu Road, Yemmiganur Mandal. The petitioner submits that, during execution of the said work, 6th respondent directed him to provide Wet Mix Macadam from Km 0/0 to Km 2/600, instead of the originally estimated stretch of 1300 metres, owing to the deep undulations, potholes and deterioration of the existing road crust.

5.

The petitioner accordingly executed the additional work on the oral instructions and assurances of the authorities that the enhanced cost would be reimbursed. The additional work was recorded in M.B. No.3129-B and was duly check-measured by the concerned authorities. The cost of the additional work was assessed at Rs.18,28,584/- plus GST of Rs.3,29,145/-, totalling Rs.21,57,729/-.

6.

It is submitted that, despite execution and measurement of the additional work, the said amount has not 6

been released to the petitioner. The petitioner states that efforts to obtain revised administrative sanction did not fructify due to objections relating to the Head of Account, though the Project Completion Report was submitted by the 6th respondent without such revised sanction.

7.

The petitioner contends that there is no dispute regarding the execution or measurement of the additional work and that the continued withholding of the admitted amount is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law. The petitioner further submits that he invested his own funds as well as borrowed funds for execution of the works and is suffering financial hardship on account of the delay in payment.

8.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, on the basis of written instructions dated 13.07.2026 received from respondent No.7, namely, Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Adoni, submits that respondent No.7 has submitted proposals to the Superintending Engineer, PR Circle, Kurnool, seeking Revised Administrative Sanction in respect of the subject work, along with the Work Done Estimate, Completion Report and proposal for Price Escalation, in view

7

of the increased deep undulations and heavy potholes encountered during execution of the work.

9.

It is further submitted that the said proposals were forwarded to the Chief Engineer, PR-I, Vijayawada, vide Letter No. AE1/Pot Holes/Yemmiganur/2025, dated 09.07.2025, by the Superintending Engineer, PR Circle, Kurnool, pursuant to the proposals submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer vide Letter Ref. No. AEE1/WDE&CR/AMC Grant/Yemmiganur/KRNL, dated 30.06.2025. The written instructions are placed on record

6.

Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineer and Contractors V. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at paragraph No.8, as under:

“Be that as it may, the High court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ juri iction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie. Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence”.

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

8

7.

Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the works executed by the petitioner and the amount payable to him, and in view of the aforesaid submissions, the respondent authorities are directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,28,584/- to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Date: 03.08.2026 PAB

9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO:16898 OF 2026 Date: 03.08.2026

PAB

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.